Web Only /
Views » November 10, 2006

Learning From Lamont (cont’d)

Email this article to a friend

Why the Specific Criticisms Are Off Base

The idea that we somehow abandoned the Iraq message after the primary is a fairly tale. Yes, we broadened the message after the primary, with Lamont giving speeches on health care, economic development, energy and education. But the campaign never, ever got away from Iraq. Observers outside of Connecticut will cite a decrease in the media stories about Lamont and the war during the late summer and early fall–but that brings up a famous parable: If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Similarly, if a candidate keeps talking about an issue and the media refuses to cover it because reporters believe it is “old news,” can that candidate be faulted for not talking about the issue? I would say no. Our ads always focused on Iraq, Lamont always talked about the war and the campaign held war-focused events up until the last day. Though some armchair quarterbacks on the left don’t want to acknowledge these facts, they are the facts.

The idea that running the entire primary was a mistake because Lieberman is supposedly more powerful now is laughable. Lieberman is a politician who drew most of his power not from his committee assignments or legislative prowess, but from his position as a media-ordained spokesman for the Democratic Party who had the “conscience” to attack Democrats with Republican talking points. This is why President Bush and Vice President Cheney so aggressively backed Lieberman. He wasn’t any old Iraq War promoter, he was crucial to pro-war conservatives because he was seen as a Democratic mouthpiece pushing the war and undermining the most credible war critics on the left.

Now, after the primary, Lieberman does not have this special platform anymore. He can never again purport to speak for the Democratic Party, because he no longer even has a nominal claim to actually being a Democrat. He officially left the Democratic Party when he ran under his own party in the general election, and his candidacy relied primarily on Republican votes, money and institutional support. That means while he can still be a gadfly and still draw attention to himself, his days of being able to fundamentally damage the image of the national Democratic Party are over.

The senator’s post-election anger suggests he intimately understands just how much power and credibility he has lost. His victory speeches on election night and the day after were laced with rage. Far from being magnanimous or humble, he used the occasion to attack the majority of Connecticut voters who voted against him as representing the “extreme.” He then issued the political equivalent of pro-wrestler threats, reiterating to Democrats that he will now be even more “independent” (read: Republican) than ever. His campaign website now features one giant link across the top of the page–a link to a blogged screed by former Christian Coalition official Marshall Wittman that breathlessly attacks progressives and bloggers for having the nerve to challenge Lieberman. (What a gracious winner you are Joe–really, you stay classy Joe Lieberman.)

But beyond stripping one man of the platform through which he preens his vanity and derives his power, the primary more importantly sent a message to other Democrats that undermining the progressive cause carries a price. The primary also served to frame the debate on the most pressing national security issue in a generation to the point where Lieberman, one of the nation’s chief war apologists, was relegated to campaigning across Connecticut saying “no one wants to bring the troops home more than me.”

The concept that Lieberman’s victory represents the triumph of faux “centrism” and a rebuke of the anti-Iraq-War movement is so silly it’s hard to treat it seriously, especially in the face of red-state victories by war critics like Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester, and in light of Rahm “Candidates Shouldn’t Talk About the War At All” Emanuel delivering an election-night victory speech acknowledging that antipathy to the war was the central reason Democrats won. As the Associated Press confirms this week, Lieberman’s margin was provided by a segment of voters who are strongly against the war, but who (wrongly) believed Lieberman is strongly against the war.

Their misperception was no accident. Immediately after the primary, Lieberman unleashed an ad campaign to portray himself as anti-war, airing an ad where he says to the camera “I want to help end the war in Iraq.” He made these claims even as he attacked all proposals to end the war. As historian Rick Perlstein noted in In These Times, this was reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s similar campaign in 1969 when he delivered a national address claiming “I want to end the war” in Vietnam, just as he was intensifying the war.

Thus, Lieberman won the election not by defending the Iraq War, but by successfully convincing a key segment of voters that he was anti-war. That is, he won not by embracing faux “centrism” but by pretending to be a progressive.

For its part, the Lamont campaign worked overtime to try to debunk Lieberman’s confusion campaign. Our internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman’s position on the war–a signal that Lieberman’s confusion campaign was working. We responded forcefully, airing TV commercials, radio commercials and Web ads pounding away at the fact that Lieberman’s anti-war rhetoric was hiding his pro-war agenda. Our closing ad, for instance, ended with Lamont stating: “A vote for Joe Lieberman is a vote for more war.” That the message didn’t get out to enough people is a commentary not on our campaign’s blindness to Lieberman’s strategy–but simply on Lieberman’s own impressive talents for persuasively lying to voters about his position on the war with a straight face.

Finally, there is the myth circulating that Lamont’s loss means the Internet is not a potent political weapon. Again, this is utterly silly. With the help of top Internet political strategist Tim Tagaris, we raised millions of dollars online, created the revolutionary Family, Friends and Neighbors tool, and brought in thousands of volunteers through the Internet. Sure, it wasn’t enough to overcome the aforementioned structural challenges we faced–but without the netroots and Internet activism, the Lamont candidacy never would have gotten off the ground in the first place.

Make no mistake. Washington pundits and career politicians attack the “netroots” because the rise of the Internet threatens to undermine their relevance and expose them to unwanted grassroots pressure. But politicians who write off the achievement of this growing political force do so at their peril. A record 86,000 new voters registered during the campaign, turnout approached all-time highs, and, as the New York Times noted, “Lamont’s campaign buoyed thousands of new voters and volunteers, and many of them helped the Democratic candidates in competitive House races.” A big part of all of that was the Internet, with the Lamont campaign proving once again that this is a medium on the rise, not decline.

A year ago, Ned Lamont had a zero percent name recognition in Connecticut. He was just a guy with some business experience and a lot of money. But he said enough was enough and walked into the fire–the fire of negative attack ads, Establishment scorn and party abandonment–to help give voice to the millions of Americans who wanted to see an end to the War in Iraq.

Even those ideology-free politicos who see politics as sport can appreciate how astounding our achievement was, just in terms of sheer electoral power. A candidate who was on the statewide general election stage for 12 weeks convinced roughly 450,000 voters to cast their vote against a 36-year career politician wielding 100 percent name ID and a massive lobbyist-funded warchest. When the votes for all the candidates were counted, the majority of Connecticut had voted against Lieberman. While not enough of that majority anti-Lieberman vote supported Lamont, no one could deny that a very powerful message had been sent to both Lieberman and the country.

I expect the Bash Ned Lamont campaign to intensify over the next few weeks, with the right already working to smear him and his supporters like they smeared George McGovern. Let’s face it–in the the face of victories by people like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and a new group of economic populists in the House, the right (and particularly the shrinking faction of right-wing Democrats) need something, anything, to hitch their wagon to. It’s tough times these days for both Republicans and right-wing Democrats – and tough times bring ugly desperation and historical revisionism.

But for movement progressives, the reality is clear. We need more Ned Lamonts. We need more leaders who have the courage to mount primary challenges to anti-progressive Democrats like Lieberman. We must also understand that in fighting these fights, we are going to lose more than we win. That is what happens when you challenge incumbents. But both the wins and the losses are important, because they all help build a longer-lasting movement that transcends any one election cycle.

I say all of this not as a “petty partisan polarizing negative name-calling finger-pointing extremist” – all terms Joe Lieberman used repeatedly to characterize Lamont supporters and war critics in general. I say it as a citizen interested far less in the ascendance of one party or another than in actual changes in policy, results and outcomes. Think about it for a moment. Lieberman’s victory is not a victory for any issue or policy. He all but admits this when he says his campaign is a victory for a nebulous and undefined “bipartisanship” rather than for any position or policy. His victory, in short, was a victory by one man, for one man.

On the other hand, Lamont’s candidacy was never about the candidate, it was always about an issue–the Iraq War. It is clear that even in defeat, his candidacy affected that issue in a more profound and constructive way than Lieberman has ever affected any issue in three decades on the public payroll.

In the recent edition of In These Times, I wrote a cover article pointing out that no matter what happened on November 7, the real fight in American politics begins on November 8. Lamont’s heroic campaign may have ended, but the movement that fueled his candidacy has a lot of work to do, whether it is to force the Democratic Party to use its new majority to press a change in this war’s course, or a change on all the other issues that wait to be addressed.

The hope is that the huge number of ordinary people who stepped up and supported Lamont and other progressives this year will see the campaign for what it was: a major formative step in a growing movement that has a very real opportunity to profoundly change America for the better.

David Sirota, an In These Times senior editor and syndicated columnist, is a staff writer at PandoDaily and a bestselling author whose book Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything was released in 2011. Sirota, whose previous books include The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, co-hosts "The Rundown" on AM630 KHOW in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

This is an excellent article as many others have pointed out.
However, I think there is much more to discuss than Lamont losing this election and why, lest we lose a very important opportunity to continue to push our country in a progressive direction. Grasroots action is required now.
Now is the time for real non-sectarian unity of liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists to put together a real vibrant coalition for ending this dirty war for occupation in Iraq and to win real single-payer, universal health care. We cannot rely on the Democratic Party to automatically carry forward this agenda because very few Democrats elected to the U.S. House or Senate stood for anything. Here in Minnesota the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party hacks refused to campaign for single-payer, universal health care or for an end to the war; rather the DFL state central committee made the decision to take the votes of working people for granted by remaining silent on these issues and made their appeal for votes to "moderate" Republicans in the suburbs and the gated communities. These DFL party hacks shoved a stand for nothing, good for nothing, self serving professional politician down the throats of the the delegates at the state convention to be the DFL candidate for governor, and surprise, surprise... he turned out to be a loser.
Instead of solutions to presing problems working people face the Democrats are promising "investigations" and "hearings" as they intend to give into the Republicans in the name of bi-partisan unity which will almost certainly result in a "pre-emptive strike" against Iran, maybe even North Korea.
These same Democrats hold up an increase of the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour even though they know full well they couldn't live on this kind of miserly wage... it wouldn't even pay Teddy Kennedy's bar tab. What we need is a minimum wage that is based upon the scientific calculations of the United States Department of Labor for a real living income. For years the Democratic Party has been evading this, chosing instead to pick a figure for the minimum wage from a hat for political expediency knowing that it will not offend the big money wheeler dealers bankrolling most of these wealthy millionaires in Congress.
George McGovern has put forward a very well thought out "Blueprint" that would get us out of Iraq while adequately compensating for the damage this country has done to Iraq. McGovern's Blueprint is being ignored by the Democratic Party, even by most of the peace movement for some reason.
With such a political backdrop it becomes darn near impossible to elect pro-peace, progressive candidates like Ned Lamont to public office as long as the Liebermans of politics are backed so heavily by the military-financial-industrial complex and capitalism goes unchallenged as the socialist alternative isn't even discussed.
Alan L. Maki
Member of the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee
Warroad, MinnesotaPosted by alanmaki on 2006-11-26 11:53:40

I wasn't reducing anything to Israel but merely commenting that that issue is the great third rail of US politics.
I think our disagreements are more apparent than real.Posted by blondemike on 2006-11-18 11:30:22

It sounds like we all have problems with Israeli apologists (liberal or conservative) and obnoxious people (liberal or conservative). But again, blondemike, by reducing it to Israel, you miss boston08's point:
"is another debate"
"if get hung up on that, you're missing the big picture"
"if you don't like it, tell them"
I do agree that politically by and large we don't disagree, it's just a matter of tone, context, and the appropriate forum to have a debate.Posted by popom on 2006-11-17 09:39:57

Boston08---You're right, I was confusing popom's posts with yours, my
apologies.
There were obnoxious liberal apologists for Israel long before the christian zionist rightist nuts came around.
Anyway, we don't really disagree.
Best to you and popom.Posted by blondemike on 2006-11-17 09:25:21

Thank you. But seriously, that's the way to go. Once we stop finger-pointing we can start doing something about it.Posted by boston08 on 2006-11-17 08:12:10

boston08: I couldn't have said it better myself, and I mean that literally: I would've lost my cool. It's rare to find reasonable words, reasonably spoken.Posted by popom on 2006-11-17 07:50:57

Blondmike,
Did you actually read my comments? I understand my post is about 4,000 words, but come on now. If you are going to say you disagree with me, I at least want to hear something from my post, with all due respect to popom here.
Look, conservatives have a strong lobbying force in Washington to support Israel. Even if Lamont was elected, that force isn't simply going to dissipate. It's going to continue to be a big dynamic in the 2008 presidential elections, and actually the Democrats closed the 'God gap' somewhat in the 2006 elections. Whether that was a product of Catholics being dissatisfied with the Bush administration, the Democrats doing a better job of reaching out to that community, or both, is another debate. But look at Rev. Ted Haggard. He was one of the most powerful evangelical Christians in Washington on top of being the President of the National Association of Evangelicals. He stepped aside after revelations that he demonstrated "sexual immorality" with a homosexual prostitute. But it's not like that group is going away and they will continue to push for what they believe in. So, Israel will always be a contentious issue. But if you get hung up on that, you're missing the big picture.
We should be focusing on reverting back to the principles and values that made this country great in the first place. And the only way Congress is going to do anything is if there is active involvement on the issue. For example, the detainee bill. Don't like it? Tell them. That's what you elected them for.Posted by boston08 on 2006-11-16 22:07:23

With all due respect we may disagree but you really need to spare the insults, popom. I agree Angelo was crude and certainly didn't understate his case but I have no reading problem. Frankly, I
don't see how Lamont would have done worse by bringing up the
AIPAC issue or making it an issue. There's no use bewailing our
terrible policy in Iraq while avoiding mentioning one of the key lobbies
that are behind it. AIPAC plays a far bigger role than the awful Sudanese
government does in DC and I think Lamont actually did condemn what's
going on in Darfur, he didn't condemn what was happening in Lebanon.
I grew up in CT a long time ago but do not know enough about the current demographics to make a judgment. I never thought the Jewish
population of CT was the main reason for his loss and I wasn't aware
that Angelo was directly making such a simple minded claim. There
was a huge amount of rightwing Jewish fundraising going on for Lieberman and if it had been reasonably attacked it could have backfired.
My longtime wife is Jewish and she has always detested Lieberman,
she voted for Nader in 2000 in protest of Gore's pick of him. I think you
fell into Angelo's trap if he set one by getting way too polemical.
I would just acknowledge what was valid in his points and reasonably
disagree with what I felt wasn't and then move on.
I don't agree with everything on counterpunch but sometimes they have
good analysis of the Israel/Palestine issue. It's an obsession with
Cockburn and I factor that in.
Ok, I have no real quarrel with you. Happy just to make my point and move on.Posted by blondemike on 2006-11-16 13:18:01

Blondemike -
You're having a reading problem as well, even though you sound more reasonable and articulate than Angelo. I welcome "legitimate criticism of US blank checks to Israel" and agree with both of you that it's wrong. However, his criticism was not legitimate - it was a wild broadside - and it was not appropriate - this being a response to an article about Lamont's failure to win rather than on US foreign policy in the middle east. Lamont's job was not to attack blank checks. His job was to become the Senator for the people of Connecticut. I didn't hear him say much about Darfur, or the Armenians, or many other issues - he spoke out about Iraq, health care, and whatever he could get out in the tiny media soundbites he was allotted.
Lamont lost by a whopping 10 points. Figure 70% turnout. Jews are 3.26% of CT's population. Figure 70% of Jews voted for Lieberman. (BTW, 2/3 of the CT Jews I know voted for Lamont, but let's assume the opposite). That means that Jewish support of Lieberman accounted for about 1.6 out of the 10 points. Let's be clear: Lamont - whom I love and supported, and so do most of my Jewish family and friends - lost because of the litany of reasons that Sirota adumbrated. To reduce this analysis to an anti-Israeli rant is unconscionable. The only reason I respond further is because you seem at least capable of forming coherent thoughts.
Counterpunch, betterlemons.org - all have writing on the subject of mixed quality, all are worth reading, and all are a better forum for this discussion than this comment section here. This thread is getting really boring.Posted by popom on 2006-11-16 09:57:41

Popom and Boston08, you two are much worse than Angelo. He is making valid points albeit with overkill but your ad hominems and name
calling only discredit yourselves. My wife is Jewish and I'm sensitive to
real anti-semitism but I can distinguish between that and legitimate
criticism of US blank checks to Israel. I do not think that Angelo was
targeting all US Jews. Maybe the political leadership like the ADL, AJC,
AIPAC, etc., but they are legitimate political targets. I do not know of
any critic of Israeli policies that would approve of them if that state was
run by Gentiles. Lamont should have attacked the US blankcheck to Israel. He was wrong in not doing so.
Also the term "people of color" is not racist, it's a condescending term invented by the white Left. But it is not racist.
Too many lefties throw around "racist" and "anti-semite" like the Right
does "pinko" and "Communist."
Popom, I actually read that two-part NYT series on US-Israel relations before you referenced it the other day and it was very weak. Go to counterpunch.org for better analysis here.Posted by blondemike on 2006-11-16 09:32:05

During the campaign I called the Lamont office and suggested they needed to scare voters/long time supporters away from Joe and one way to do that would be by asking voters if they could trust Joe to vote against another war sold on cherry-picked intelliegence this time in Iran if crazy Bush decided to launch some kind of attack. I suggested that Joe's ties and support of Israel should not go unchallanged of course recognizing how carefully one would need to present this issue so it didn't backfire. I got the impression the Lamont campaign was too afraid of the backlash from Jewish supporters or didnt understand how to frame this issue the right way and wouldn't touch it. Later I read that JL was attacking Lamont as not supportive enough of Israel. So he couldn't win no matter what he did or didn't say on this subject.
Unfortunately a real debate on Israel can't be had in this country and anyone who tries to have one is labeled anti-zionist or worse and then marginalized and threatened with loss of job, etc. And unfortunately because of this the role JL's religion plays in how he votes and what he supports couldn't be attacked properly by Lamont. Yet it is Joe's religion and uncritical support of Israel which allows/compels him to support the same mis-guided foreign policies as the American Taliban and Bush in the Middle East.
What Rove and others understand is you often need to scare voters into not voting for someone and this is a valid card to play in an election. I don't think the Lamont campaign used it. But even if they had it doesn't mean they would have won as it they faced steep and long odds beating JL when the GOP was fully supporting him.
That said, I can no longer send anymore of money to the DSCC either because despite their claims to the contrary, the Senate Dems faiiled to fullly support their winner of the CT primary and instead worked behind the scenes to help JL. Also I cannot forgive Bill Clinton for the damage he inflicted on the Lamont campaign by his inaction and statements.Posted by rjcrane on 2006-11-15 12:08:59

boston08 -
It's terribly sad. "But as Mr. Lieberman claimed a healthy lead in polls, Mr. Reid reached out to him. "
Politics.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4641
In response to your earlier comment, I'd created a web commercial for Ned which was designed to try to appeal to GOP voters. My friend's car was stolen outside my house when we were filming it. By the time the ad was made, though, the campaign had devolved into a stretto: a vote for Joe is a vote for more war. I doubt however Ned was marketed, though, in light of Tim's writings in the article above, that he could've pulled it off.
I hope we haven't seen the last of him and the good crew who worked on his campaign. Joe thought two moves "ahead" and emerged parading "Ned's head" through the streets, to ward off future attackers. Let's look away from the creep and focus on how to hold the rest - the ones who aren't in for life - accountable. Because I see no way to control Joe, not for the near-term.Posted by popom on 2006-11-14 21:13:20

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/us/politics/15lieberman.html?hp&ex=1163566800&en=b704d175ee098131&ei=5094&partner=homepagePosted by boston08 on 2006-11-14 20:28:23

Angelo -
Yes:
17. that you can't read. Here's what else you missed:
18. "you guys": sounds very Ross Perot. I'd mentioned quite clearly that I am not a guys. Same goes for "kill Palestinians": never killed one, sorry. Are you hearing those voices in your head again? Stop boxing with shadows already.
19. I said I agree with you to a normal degree. "most hated on the planet": Mindless support for Israel when she acts as reprehensively as she has is, well, reprehensible.
19. Again, you missed the fact that I apologized in advance for criticizing your spelling; I only found it indicative in your lack of reading and doing your homework; go do some, and you'll find your arguments becoming more subtle.
20. Race-baiting. And you do it again by saying here "people of color." Note how I never said "you guys" (like you do - see above) - I was just talking about you, crazy, stupid Angelo.
21. My comment on how arguing with an idiot like yourself can get one mired in a morass of stupidity: which you exemplify again in comments like "your slaves."
Since we've both established a litany of character flaws against you, allow me to spell my main point out for you:
While you're a complete horse's ass, I don't think you're an *incorrigible* horse's ass. I see energy and potential there and wish you the best in someday rocking the boat. AIPAC and Israel's behavior of late largely sucks. But it isn't the only game in town controlling Congress or the US's motivations. Surely you can do more for the cause than to get into a recursively spiteful dialog (sorry, monologue, since your ears are waxed shut) with me, or to post your broadsides in a Lamont blog. I'm sure there are lots of places out there where you can learn more about the issue - and perhaps even, someday, add something to the conversation in the room.
Your unwitting comrade in your valiant, noble struggle against the man,
popom
*********
boston08 -
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.Posted by popom on 2006-11-14 20:19:52

You know, each time I get a response I think someone has actually taken the time to read my comments. Let's try to keep our focus on Lamont and moving forward. That's what this thread was originally for.Posted by boston08 on 2006-11-14 20:09:07

oh, thanks popom...
...nice to know:
1. that I am non-spelling...
2, that I am am idiotic...
3. that I am hysterical...
4. that I am anti-Jewish...
5. that i am a chickenshit
6. that I rant...
7. that I harangue...
8. that I am Sean Hannity-like...
9. that I am a representative of the "lowest instincts of humanity"...
10. that I am insane...
11. that I don't listen...
12. that I am a thread hijacker...
13. that I hold a black and white view of the world...
14. that I play "whack-a-mole" (now thats low)...
15. that I blame one side...
16. that I am a horses ass...
...did I miss anything?
no wonder you guys can hold the line against reason and truth - all you do is kill Palestinians, call people names, engage in "ad hominem argumentation" (your well spelt words) - cost us 10 billion a year in foreign aid, make our country the most hated on the planet (where we once were the most admired) - and make us take our shoes off at the airport .
Oh and you guys can spell...
...Shit, thats it! If people of color learn to spell - then we can have World Wars, destory the planet, and make money - and white people can chew coca leaves...thats it - the secret of colonialism, imperialism, irredentism, and Zionism comes down to spelling!
Must have gotten your goat. It's a good thing I didn't try to free your slaves - you'd be real mad!Posted by angelo on 2006-11-14 19:57:46

Angelo -
Continuing my thread - had enough? -
1. You are a chickenshit. Second time you referred to me indirectly by waiting until some other psycho concurred with you, instead of responding to my argument. Some John Brown you are!
2. You are an idiot. Jeez, I can't believe I'm responding to someone who can't spell, who uses "it's" for "its," "breath" for "breathe," "profoundity" for "profundity," who doesn't even know what a screed is. I'm not being elitist because of your grammar, but because that, plus the callowness of your argument, makes it evident that you get your ideas from having read one book or website in your life. To argue with you is to be dragged down into a morass of stupidity. BTW, cute use of "et. al." You used it wrong, but hey.
3. You're insane and don't listen. You hijacked a thread, have a black and white view of the world, blame one side, and have a whack-a-mole game where the rest of us have brains. And now again: guy posts something about your tangent, and you respond with not one but two more comments beating your own drum. Sirota's article was nothing about this - go beat your drum where they're playing your tune, or in the privacy of your own bathroom. It's really unseemly already.
4. You have a more in common with Sean Hannity than you think (I use the term loosely in your case). It's an old trick: Democrat X says something crazy, you're a Democrat, now you're guilty by proxy! Spielberg is a middling filmmaker and hardly a great thinker or an intellectual. Dershowitz is reprehensible. So are white supremicists, many evangelicals, and - get this - many Palestinians. Life is not as simple as you make it, nor can it be reduced to one theory. Just because I know that you're addlebrained does make me a Zionist or an apologist. I'm here because I love Lamont, not because I want to engage in Israel-bashing or race-baiting.
I do not agree with Spielberg on many things, nor do I agree with the bulk of what you wrote. Far from it. The difference is, Spielberg wrote and directed "Jaws," and you can't even form a coherent thought.
There's nothing wrong with your "hot-potato issue," but it's not the only issue shaping world events. It sounds like you have a lot of passion and energy. I'd bet our politics are not that far off from each other, and I sympathize with the points you think you're trying to make. Slow down, learn about the issues from more sources, listen to people, get a spell-checker, keep your comments relevant to the topic, and then go rock the boat.Posted by popom on 2006-11-14 18:27:29

Did everyone get the profoundity of what blondemike said?
"I have no magic wand to wave here but IPosted by angelo on 2006-11-14 17:20:13

thanks blondemike...
...better to say my comments are crude than going ballistic and name calling - as Zionists are prone to do when you expose them for what they are (yea, you et. al. popom). Would be even better if they left us in peace by leaving for their beloved Israel. Spielberg recently said he "would die for Israel." You've never heard him say he'd die for America have you? He should just emigrate to Israel if he loves it so much - go build a big house next to Gaza and protect his scalp from those savage Palestinians...Now that diminishes the validity of Schindlers List - and now the movie Munich. Yes, he too is going ballistic on us albeit through his art form...
But it's not just a Jewish thing - it's a white supremacists thing. Evangelicals (thanks for reminding us popom) - are born again red necks who need "Jesus" to claim "moral superiority" over the rest of us - you know, as cover so they can kill and maim and persecute brown or black people (i.e. Iraq) while doing meth and banging gay males...genealogically and historically the same folks who raped and tortured and enslaved Africans. For these folks Israel has become a sacred step-child! - - to defend to the point of a new Holocaust to "prove” the power and wrath of Christ. Neo-con / Zionist sickos..
Anyway, I digress...good point blondemike: why be against the war (the one Lieberman loves) and support the basis for it: to support Israel. Lamont almost pulled it off - and the fact he came within 10 points means the sands are shifting with respect to our support for a country every country in the world – except for ours, has come to hate. Not because of “anti-Semitism” – that’s for hateful white people, but because it both took and took out on Palestine what Germans did to Jews (and 50 million other people).
…Joe Biden who once said "I'm proud to be a Zionist" (he must have been running for President or something) and most democrats still can't budge from stalwart support, but history has away of ironing things out. The fact that Alan Dershowitz, popom, and even the likes of Stephen Spielberg need to circle the wagons means they are very much afraid that the bottom will one day fall out on our support for Israel.
Lamont was just a cog in that direction - but an important one...
Never forget Rachel Cory - who died an American martyr defending Palestinians against Israeli facists...Posted by angelo on 2006-11-14 17:08:02

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?_r=1&oref=sloginPosted by popom on 2006-11-14 15:01:47

Angelo is crude but makes some valid points. For some reason we really can't discuss this issue in polite company in the western world,
which itself feeds in to anti-Jewish sentiments. Since 99.99% of all
semites in the world are Arab I believe the "anti-semitism" label is
largely irrelevant.
What good does it do a Lamont to oppose the Iraq war but then follow
the AIPAC line on Palestine/Israel ? They were the top lobby for both Gulf Wars and Pelosi, Reid, et al, have been terrible here as were
Edwards & Keery in 04.
I have no magic wand to wave here but I'm not too optimistic about
a serious foreign policy change given AIPAC's alomost total control
over Congress.Posted by blondemike on 2006-11-14 14:53:06

The way tio finally defeat Joe L is in the next Senatorial election in '08.
Right now it is a regretable fact that with the balance of power so tightt and tenuous, the Dems need him to retain control of the Senate. However, if in '08 the country increases the number of Dems, then independent Joe can go his own way on his own hook. So, the job of progressive grass- and netroots organizations is to start looking NOW for the candidates "most likely to" in '08. We saw before how the balance in the Senate can change in a flash. We've got to be prepared.Posted by GillianB on 2006-11-14 09:07:42

The last two races that Joe Lieberman ran, his opponent got exactly 448,077 votes. In 2000 the opponent was a Republican, and in 2006 the opponent was a Democrat.
When you roll a dice, the chance you can get a 6 is 1 in 6. The chance that you can get a 6 twice in a row is 1 in 6x6, or 1 in 36.
Chances of rolling a 448,077 twice in a row are 1 in 200,772,997,929.
This is not taking into account that we are not just dealing with dice. These are two groups of people voting against you for opposite reasons.
http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2000/CT
SENATE
% CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE
34.17% Phil Giordano Republican 448,077
63.21% Joseph Lieberman* EMAIL | WEB Independent 828,902
1.94% William Kozak Concerned Citizens 25,509
0.67% Wildey J. Moore EMAIL Concerned Citizens 8,773
PERCENTAGE REPORTING 100%
http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2006/CT
SENATE
% CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE
40% Ned Lamont EMAIL | WEB Democrat 448,077
50% Joseph Lieberman* EMAIL | WEB Independent 562,850
10% Alan Schlesinger EMAIL | WEB Republican 109,329
1% Ralph Ferrucci EMAIL | WEB Green 5,923
PERCENTAGE REPORTING 100%Posted by Diggins on 2006-11-13 15:52:30

It would be wrong to assume that Ned Lamont's campaign meant absolutely nothing after spending $16 million for the U.S. Senate. And yes, the Democrats did take control of the House and the Senate. Lamont deserves credit for at least broadening the public's dialouge, especially on Iraq. Lamont's opponents said he was a one-issue candidate, but to a large degree the election was a referendum on Iraq, and by extention President Bush. Already, the governor of Iowa, and Sen. McCain, are preparing for a 2008 presidential run and Iowa is one of the battleground states.
Where I think Lamont erred was in two ways. I preface my comments by saying that I realize how very difficult it is to unseat an incumbent of Lieberman's stature. And for the most part, up until the primary, Lamont ran a near-perfect campaign. But he didn't explain how his business experience would have been beneficial in the U.S. Senate. He said, "I've balanced budgets and provided healthcare" in his commercials. And I thought to myself, okay, great. And? How will it benefit Connecticut? Instead, I heard, "I'm Ned Lamont and I approved this message (and so do we!)"
The other thing wasn't so much what Lamont did wrong, it was something Lieberman did right. He always prefaced that he would work across party lines. Lamont kind of backed himself into a corner in retrospect, when you look at the commercial with Sen. Dodd. It was a great commercial but he was essentially agreeing with Lieberman in that you have to work with your colleagues. What Lamont could have done instead was air a commercial that said, "Sen. Lieberman says he works across party lines. It's a noble idea, but here's how it hurt Connecticut families," and given a couple of examples. Then, end with, "Working with colleagues is important, but Connecticut families come first," and then his signoff. It would have been an effective counter to Lieberman's argument.
On the other hand, Sen. Lieberman had to rely on Republicans to keep his seat at a time when there was widespread anti-Republican sentiment. On top of that, he spent almost as much as Lamont ($15 million) and that doesn't count special interest money, which was well over $50 million. He still has yet to answer for 387-thousand dollars in a so-called slush fund that he didn't itemize with the Federal Elections Commission. And essentially, he is no longer a Democrat. So I view his return to office with a lot skepticism. I cannot possibly fathom how he can represent Connecticut voters with the amount of baggage he comes with. Then again, he is in office for six years, so he has time to restore some confidence. But I doubt that he will regain the goodwill he had as Vice President Gore's running mate in 2000.
And there are still several questions. One of the biggest ones is whether Sen. Lieberman will change HIS tune - not just President Bush. Will he caucus with the Democrats as he says he will, or will he caucus with Republicans, since he is now, technically, a third party? If he becomes chair of the Homeland Security Commitee, and many reports suggest he will, how will Lamont's campaign have played a role in his thinking on both issues?
On the other hand, what to make of Lamont? Will we see him run for office again, or was this his best shot? Although Lamont plays down his wealth, he should have no problem running again. But that remains to be seen. Lamont lost by 10 but he was by no means blown out. And he won the Democratic primary in August, so unseating Lieberman is possible. But it takes a near-perfect effort to do that. Lamont, in my opinion, allowed Lieberman just enough wiggle room after the primary, so the debate became a litimus test of Lamont's experience for the U.S. Senate rather than the polices Lieberman supported President Bush on.
It will be fun to watch.Posted by boston08 on 2006-11-13 14:49:06

The last two races that Joe Lieberman ran, his opponent got exactly 448,077 votes. In 2000 the opponent was a Republican, and in 2006 the opponent was a Democrat.
When you roll a dice, the chance you can get a 6 is 1 in 6. The chance that you can get a 6 twice in a row is 1 in 6x6, or 1 in 36.
Chances of rolling a 448,077 twice in a row are 1 in 200,772,997,929.
This is not taking into account that we are not just dealing with dice. These are two groups of people voting against you for opposite reasons.
http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2000/CT
SENATE
% CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE
34.17% Phil Giordano Republican 448,077
63.21% Joseph Lieberman* EMAIL | WEB Independent 828,902
1.94% William Kozak Concerned Citizens 25,509
0.67% Wildey J. Moore EMAIL Concerned Citizens 8,773
PERCENTAGE REPORTING 100%
http://www.evote.com/?q=elections2006/CT
SENATE
% CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE
40% Ned Lamont EMAIL | WEB Democrat 448,077
50% Joseph Lieberman* EMAIL | WEB Independent 562,850
10% Alan Schlesinger EMAIL | WEB Republican 109,329
1% Ralph Ferrucci EMAIL | WEB Green 5,923
PERCENTAGE REPORTING 100%Posted by Diggins on 2006-11-13 09:09:28

Angelo -
If you read the posts to which you comment - if you listen instead of just haranguing - if you try to engage people in dialogue in the current conversation instead of stealing it toward you own agenda - you'll find that Sirota wrote a good piece about election power and politics in Connecticut. What you wrote has some bearing on that, of course - about as much as, say, the Boston Red Sox, the movie Shrek, and the writings of Gertrude Stein.
"My beloved Israel?" Actually, I'm deeply angry at Israel and AIPAC, at Wolfowitz and any politician who puts Israel (or any other country) above morality, the right thing to do, common sense, long-term benefit for the masses, and our own country. Verifi made some good points - but lots of other powerful Dem senators - even ones who vocally criticize Israel - refused to come through for Ned as well. And it may not have mattered anyway, since the GOP was not going to run a credible Republican against them.
And the "Jewish influence" on the election was probably a wash: as many people voted for Lieb because of his Jewishness (less than 10% of CT's population, BTW) as voted against him because of disgust at him, his policies, his character, and even some of the things you mention. Their behavior is almost as reprehensible as your hijacking this thread with your screed against them.
Now you latch onto a few lines of Verifi's and continue your rant, bringing some happy race relations into the mix: good vibrations!
I'm sorry I called you a horse's ass. I was being too kind.Posted by popom on 2006-11-12 10:29:19

Verifi -
Thanks for pointing out the AIPAC / pro-Israel element in Lamonts defeat. It's like criticizing slavery in the 1840s - a very hot potato.
We must bring it up again and again...and anyway it's to "there" in our face to touch and feel - we ultimately will face it one way or another. That Lamont "only" lost by 10 points - and the fact that 25% of Americans don't support Israel (up from 15% a decade ago) indicate we are going in the right direction.
The bottom will fall out when the Democratic Party has to choose between its Black constituents and it's Jewish constituents. Many African-Americans are increasingly confronting the fact the "liberal white Jews" are more Jewish (i.e. pro-Israeli no matter what it does to brown people who dare to resist) than liberal - and more white that than they ever imagined (this is relatively new: we once though Jews were so "cool" they couldn't be white!).
This schism is coming. As more and more blacks take on progessive and more strident causes, the underlying tension between Jews and Blacks will spill out into the open with deveatating results for the Party.
Bring it on!Posted by angelo on 2006-11-12 10:08:27

Angelo:
You are a horse's ass.
Israel, America, and religious people often behave in evil ways, but your comment reduces everything into one hysterical anti-Jewish screed which shows off the lowest instincts of humanity. I don't usually resort to ad hominem argumentation, but since everything is conflated in your skull to the one issue, there will be no reasoning with you.
Go away, you abject idiot.Posted by popom on 2006-11-12 07:45:48

Your article --intelligent and cogent in itself-- has sparked one of the most stimulating, interesting conversations I have ever seen on the Net. It seems to me that the sum total of the comments above, read in connection with your initial article, really do tell the whole story of the Lamont campaign --and of a lot of other problems in America as well. Perhaps the recent article about the hidden power of AIPAC, combined with the willingness of people like angelo to speak out against Israel and its American apologists, will begin to chip away at the power of this Fifth Column; in any case, the analysis -I should say the analySES -- on this site have been outstanding. I am pleased to have been a part of this incisive and constructive conversation.Posted by Froggy2345 on 2006-11-12 07:10:46

For Gods sake David - say what you really know: that the Democratic party has a huge Jew / Zionist / Israeli-centric problem that confuses all of our politics. How can you possibly be a liberal-progressive and support IsraelPosted by angelo on 2006-11-11 22:32:46

Thanks for this insight, David.
I, for one, would be very interested in how you think this group of Blogging Progressives, can make an impact on these New Dem Centrists in congress who ignored Lamont, like Emmanual, Schumer, Clinton, etc.
I have given my last dime to DSCC and DCCC. I hope others join me in telling them that, and why. (info@dscc.org, and dccc@dccc.org).
If Hillary runs in 2008, there will be no support to help her from me. I may be forced to pull the lever for her, strictly because I cannot stomach McCain nor Guiliani, but she will get no money nor other support.
While we are all united on Lamont, this would be an excellent time to take this movement and use it for going forward !
Are you up to taking the helm, and leading us to Progressive Victories?
Thank you for all you did, btw.Posted by PamB on 2006-11-11 16:13:04

I believe that Ned Lamont's contribution to the movement for political change, his primary victory over Joe Lieberman was an engine of the electoral victory that thrust the Democrats back into the Congressional majority..
Lamont demonstrated that opposition to the war and politics as usual resonated with voters. Over the years, we have known so much disappointment and the ever greater influence of money trumping the will of the people. We live for the unique emergence of a Paul Wellstone or a Jan Schakowsky; and, the reassurance of courageous leaders such as John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Henry Waxman, Barbara Lee, or Barbara Boxer.
The results last Tuesday brought dozens of new progressive voices to the public debate. The majority of voters cast their ballots for a resurgence of democrcacy. Given the mistakes of war, the unequaled greed and duplicity encouraged and assured by the Bush years and the Rove-accountable client Congress, and the threat of climate change - we have acted just in the nick of time.
It's a matter of physical, emotional, moral and idealistic survival. I thank Ned Lamont for the crucial role he has played in this election; and, I look forward to his continued participation in the ongoing struggle for a politics of humanity. Those of us who are progressives must all take the time to reflect on the importance of the Lamont campaign. I am thankful for the inspiring campaign that he ran and the victory for the politics of inclusion.Posted by Paul M on 2006-11-11 13:38:47

Thanks David for a terrific article summarizing various important aspects of the Lamont campaign and what this means for the progressive movement. But I feel that Lieberman becomes even more powerful now - not necessarily as a Democrat but as a Senator - because he now holds all the cards in the Dems having a majority in the Senate and can play both sides for his advantage. We both know that he blackmailed various Senators into promising him he would keep his seniority in exchange for caucusing with them if he won and this was a major centerpiece to his campaign that was never seriously refuted as you stated . I couldn't even get Harry Reid's office to deny this deal was made even though Reid claimed he hadn't made one.
Also maybe you wrote this before you had this information but the two main guests on Meet the Press this weekend are McCain and Lieberman - both extreme warhawks whose views are out of touch with a vast majority of the people. But I bet they are both treated as heroes attempting to unite the country and with kid gloves over their horrible pro-war views and positions. So I have doubts as to whether or not Lieberman will be relegated to the scrap heap of the Dem. Party as a spokeperson with the sorry state of our media. Until we can figure out why they treat McCain as a personable moderate instead of as a sociopath, we can't trust the media in how they will treat Lieberman. With exceptions to Chris Matthews who has been willing to challenge all of these warhawks.
We both agree that it was a horrible mistake to trust the Chuck Schumers of the Dem. Party to effectively deal with Lieberman. Even I knew better than to do that and blogged the campaign right after the primary to start out of the gate with tons of cash and full barrels firing at Lieberman to prevent his campaign for getting any traction and thus cash.
Lieberman had many years to build a loyal base of supporters and with a very weak GOP candidate the Lamont campaign faced long odds. But the campaign should feel proud of itself for the great showing it made despite all of the major obstacles faced. I also don't feel we can entirely fault the Dem Party for putting more resources in places like MO, TN, and VA versus into the Lamont campaign. But I do fault the Clintons and Boxer for not undoing the damage they did to Lamont during the primary. What little money Hillary gave the campaign was mostly raised in NY at fundraisers and not CT. And I also applaud the Dems who worked hard for the Lamont campaign: Dodd, Kerry, Edwards, and Clarke...and Sharpton and Jackson during the primaries.
I truly wonder though if people will feel energized and keep fighting for great progressive candidates like Lamont or will they feel betrayed by the forces that seem too powerful to overcome. I saw this sense of betrayal happen after Dean's campaign flamed out in Iowa. I am not convinced that the system isn't too rigged to ever become an effective progressive voice. Even Sherrod Brown felt he needed to vote for the Military Comm. Act to win in OH.Posted by rjcrane on 2006-11-11 09:09:13

good grief!!
paragraph after paragraph and not one shred of strategic responsibility taken. if this analysis is to believed there isn't one thing you did wrong or should have done differently, that the whole enterprise was doomed from the start and that there was no point in even trying.
and yet a poll taken before Lamont entered the race showed Lieberman losing to an "unnamed" Democrat. you blew 10 million dollars and still couldn't get it together.
we knew Lamont was in huge trouble the night of Lieberman's primary non-concession speech. we heard Lieberman reinventing himself, creating new metaphors in real time, while Lamont got stuck like a broken record on his basic stump speech. it got so bad that if we heard Lamont say "63 lobbyists for every member of Congress" one more time we swore we would throw something at the TV.
in short, you have learned NOTHING, and worse, you are not interested in learning anything.Posted by thepen on 2006-11-10 22:16:26

I want to thank the Lamont campaign for exposing Lieberman for what he truly is--the worst kind of opportunist. He is more concerned about himself than the party or America. What a poor excuse for a human being.
I didn't know much about Lieberman until recently when I heard about Lamont taking him on in the primary. The Lamont campaign definitely opened my eyes to how corrupt politicians like Lieberman can be. I think he is a republican and he should have had the guts to run as one. He would have lost.
The democratic leadership should have strongly backed Lamont and campaigned against Lieberman. How can they be talking about putting him in charge of Homeland Security? What a slap in the face. Looks like I need to find another party that represents my values.Posted by truedemocrat on 2006-11-10 13:57:29

It is probably not correct to say that Lieberman has lost power. In fact, he will likely bethe most frightenly powerful man in the country after the beginning of the year.
Lieberman has not shown any particular ethical or patriotic quality during the past several years, concentrating instead on his own self-glorification.
So let us posit this: Dick Cheney resigns. Bush pretends to "reach across the aisle" for his vice-president - Joe Lieberman. If the democrats choose not to approve this nomination by Bush, Lieberman can simply walk across the aisle and caucus with the republicans, instead of the democrats. The senate will have fifty votes on either side. Sooner or later someone would be approved as vice president, but that would be a republican whose tie-breaker vote would always go with the republicans.
If, on the other hand, the democrats ratify Bush's choice, there will be a vacancy in the senate, which would be filled by the governor of CT - a republican. There would be a fifty-fifty tie again, but this time Lieberman as vice president would be the tie-breaking vote. Where do you think that vote would go: to the democrats, or to the party whose guy made him vice president to begin with?
This is a Karl Rove nightmare scenario. Watch for it to unfold.Posted by archon_jim1 on 2006-11-10 13:55:05

I'd like to express my appreciation for Ned Lamont's campaign, and over at my blog, I credit Lamont for setting the tone of the 2006 campaign, and thereby the Democrat's campaign victory.
http://cowardlydemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/11/we-salute-ned-lamont-who-pretty-much.html
Indeed, IF the Democrats ran FIGHTING campaigns the way that Lamont went after, and defeated, Joe Lieberman in the Dem. primary, I wouldn't have had to set up and title my blog "cowardlyDemocrats" in the first place! (A rather brutal title, I will confess, but I got sick of seeing Gore, Daschle, Lieberman, Hillary, Biden, Kerry, and the entire DLC/DSCC/DCCC establishment trying to fudge the issues and give Bush-GOP a FREE PASS for serial corruption, lies, & etc.)
As I think my post mentions, Lieberman was at the epicenter of TWO miserably failed Democratic elections; Gore's choice of backstabbin' Joe in '00 sealed his defeat in Southern states (and thereby his losing the White House despite a popular vote majority), and again in the 2002 midterms, when Lieberman (along with Majority "leader" Tom Daschle) singlehandedly ROBBED the Democrats of their best issue, by TYING George W. Bush to his #1. campaign donor through at least 3 major elections, ENRON's Ken Lay. Lieberman single-handedly WET-BLANKETED the Enron investigation in his committee (Govt. Affairs), which he ONLY became the Chair of due to Vt. Sen. Jefford's courageous DEFECTION from the Bush-GOP party of arrogance and unilateralism. Hell, George Bush snatched Enron exec. THOMAS WHITE from the very flames of Enron's collapse, and installed him as Secretary of the Army... and STILL Lieberman, Daschle, and the DC Dems gave Bush and Enron a "Free Pass"!
Undoubtably, Joe Lieberman had the advantage this year of MULT-MILLION dollar business/lobbying donations, including the extremely conservative INSURANCE industry for which Connecticut is known. He also had the advantage of his AIPAC (Israel) credentials, always a huge force in American politics, even in an anti-neo-con year. For example, in Florida Ron Klein defeated entrenched incumbent Clay Shaw - something of a minor miracle - even though the Republican Gov. candidate Charlie Crist defeated his Dem. rival Jim Davis. What is important in that race is that Crist, a FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, raised THREE TIMES as much as Dem. Davis. That is, Jeb Bush's attorney general - if ANYONE knows where the bodies are buried, which FL companies skirted the laws, and where the gravy donors and lobbyists would be lined up - we can assume that the Attorney General would be at the top of the list.
Getting back to AIPAC, many extremely powerful Dems are full-fledged adherents to the radical Likud agenda that AIPAC always ends up supporting, including DCCC Chair Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Lieberman, 5 other Dem. senators, and even "liberal" Jewish Democratic poltiicians (such as Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Robert Wexler, and now Ron Klein) are very, very, very reluctant to criticize Israel, AIPAC, or the neo-con agenda.
So in the end, Ned was defeated by Republican/corporate millions, AIPAC, and the tendency of even "liberal" Conn. voters to side with the big-biz conservatives in their state... That is, as long as Lieberman SHIFTED TO THE LEFT to present himself AS A DEMOCRAT.
Undoubtably, Ned Lamont FORCED that shift by Lieberman (to the left), and all of us Democrats across America owe Ned a vote of thanks just for FORCING Lieberman to do so. In so doing (forcing Lieberman to run as a Democrat), Ned also defined the parameters of election 2006.
I hope to see Ned Lamont RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN, and for him and Howard Dean to FORCE the Democratic Party BACK to the "provide services for citizens" business it is supposed to be in.Posted by Verifi on 2006-11-10 11:43:33

Imagine if Ned Lamont's campaign had taken $387,000 out in "petty cash" in the 12 days before the primary. Anne Kornblut and Jennifer Medina would have been on it like Doberman pinschers. They'd have run down every name in those FEC disclosures. They'd have forced him from the race. His primary victory would have been illegitimate, etc.
The Washington establishment would have had press conferences with Public Citizen and Common Cause and what else.
Christopher Shays, author of the Shays Meehan Campaign Finance reform, who called Lieberman a "national treasure" during the election, would have gone after Lamont every day of the week.
Its simple: there are no campaign finance laws if campaigns are allowed to call it "petty cash" and take the money out by the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are no laws against bribing politicians if the money can be taken out as petty cash.
But what did Russ Feingold (McCain Feingold campaign finance reform) have to say about it? Hmmm? Or Marty Meehan, who I believe didn't even have an opponent?
I'm hoping Lamont invests another million to get some forensic accountants and P.I.s on the leads already in the FEC disclosures with more to come in future general election disclosures. The FEC would have to investigate a candidate claiming a $387,000 loophole no matter what but they probably have limited resources and theres a lot to nail down. Probably a lot of corrupt Connecticut Democratic pols are involved.Posted by Karen444 on 2006-11-10 09:42:48

Yeah - that's Connecticut for you - liberal, progressive - but small-town-minded. The Youtube ad I made tried to go right at the heart of that - maybe there's little better Ned could've done, but I hope we haven't heard the last of him - or of the CT netroots movement!Posted by popom on 2006-11-10 09:12:06

After only two days of canvassing for Lamont I found out that there are a lot of people who voted for Lieberman who really didn't like him. Most of their responses were about how scary the outside world was and no matter how crappy Joe was they voted for him only for the fact that he had experience. They couldn't chance the Senate seat on a new guy. No matter how I tried to suggest that maybe it was Joe's performance that contributed to the scariness they still held their noses and voted Joe. It was pretty depressing. But I wouldn't have traded the experience for the world and it was a complete honor to work for such a stand up guy.
Lamont for President.Posted by lisadawn82 on 2006-11-10 09:08:35

The biggest lesson is to think two moves ahead. This loss (and abandonment by the party) was heartbreaking - but the lesson to be learned from Joe is about power. He learned to think two moves ahead after the recount in 00, and he saw here that Repubs would vote for him by a 10-to-1 margin in the main election, and that Rahm & co. would support him, afraid not to if they won. We will not be able to control Joe - but NED SHOULD RUN for Congress in 08 or work with Dean. I'd be thrilled. The real question is how to make the netroots hold them accountable *while they're actually governing* - make every session a Macaca moment - and think about, for the next time, how to dual-market to our base (such as the Iraq ads) and to Republicans as well (such as my http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CuVJinlWQY ad). Because with all of our success in getting huge numbers of Dems to vote for Ned and against Joe, which is incredible, we still made our candidate impossible for Repubs to vote for - it would've been like if the Repubs ran Rick Santorum against Joe instead - we would've voted for Joe.
Brian Felsen
www.brianfelsen.comPosted by popom on 2006-11-10 08:00:22

Excellent, excellent article! As one of those internaughts who contributed to Lamont early in the campaign, and as a person who regularly, in the early days, wrote in Kos and elsewhere exaclty the sentiments you have just expressed on the subject of the leadership of the Democratic Party, I am thrilled to read your comprehensive and cogent analysis. It was clear to me from Day One that the leadership of the Democratic Party was giving Lamont lip service only; and as time went on --as Reid failed to take any action to publicly support Lamont, and failed to tell the voters of Conn that Lieberman would be denied his committee assignments if he won-- it was clear that The Usual Suspects were solidly lined up behind Lieberman and were quietly, stealthily, but quite unequivocally stabbing Lamont in the back.
All of this would leave me feeling very glum indeed about the future of any change in Washington, even after the amazing victory of so many Democrats. Many if not most Democratis office-holders DO feed out of the Rahn Emmanuel/DLC trough; many of them seem to be entirely hand in glove with the Republicans, differing with them in name but hardly in principle.
But there is hope. Nancy Pelosi has been a member of the "out of Iraq now" crowd ever since shortly after Murragh"s (sp?) announcement on this subject; and I note with considerable delight the comments by Sen. Elect Webb in todays's NYT, promising to be an outspoken advocate of rapid if not instant withdrawal, even if the Democratic Party is not.
Rahm Emmanuel and the DLC may still run the show. But with this election, which will have to be understood as a victory for Howard Dean (among others); and with such new faces as Sherrod Brown and Sen. Webb, another point of view may be taking root in Washington.
In any case, I for one, thought your piece was definitive, and am sending it to all my friends.
I have only one suggestion. You talk about the "structural" problems of the Lamont campaign. That is undoubtedly a useful term, but the central fact of importance to Democratic readers is the betrayal of the Democratic Nominee by the leadership of the Democratic Party. If I were you, I would call those smug bastards by the name they deserve: traitors to the Democratic Party, betrayers of the Democratic voters of Connecticut.. And I would provide even more details of how these SOBS failed, again and again, to help Lamont, when their help very likely could have produced an entirely different result.
Keep up the good work. We need more Washington analysts like you!Posted by Froggy2345 on 2006-11-10 06:28:17